Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Signpost
WT:POST
Feedback

The Signpost feedback

Please use this page for general or technical issues, praise, queries, or complaints.

  • For suggestions of a topic to cover, see Suggestions.
  • For article-specific comments, please add them to that article's talk page.
  • For proposals for an opinion essay, interview, WikiProject report, special report, or book review, see the dedicated Opinion, Interviews, WikiProject, Special, and Review desks.
  • For proposals for a feature, see the Newsroom.
  • If your message is urgent, please leave a message here or try to find a Signpost regular in the IRC channel #wikisignpost connect.
  • For an index of Signpost pages, please see the Index.


Redirect quote template[edit]

Conversation moved from Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Quote. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

First, Andy, it was an MfD, and I assumed you'd realize that you were being reverted because you hadn't discussed your edits beforehand (again; this seems to be a reoccurring pattern). The quote templates are not the same, and I don't see a compelling reason why they should be merged. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I've moved my comment back where I started the conversation. Leave it there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── To Signpost editors, is this matter satisfactorily resolved, though not discussed here? As has been questioned and assert at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Quote#Concluded?? --doncram 00:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Per my closure there, I believe it to be so. Go Phightins! 01:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for an item in the Signpost -- no Page view statistics[edit]

(I don't know where I am supposed to make a suggestion, so please forgive me if I have sinned)

Page view statistics has been down for days, and no one seems to know why or who to report it to. See:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#http:.2F.2Fstats.grok.se_partial_data. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Legoktm: Can you fit this into the technology report before publication? Rcsprinter123 (palaver) @ 17:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Context: last October, the WMF said that they were trying to build a new page view system: "Negrin told [the Signpost] that they are aware of the problem and are currently working to replace the current apparatus with a "modern, scalable system," which will come out in a preliminary form next quarter." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Ijon (Asaf Bartov) has raised it here Shyamal (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Single page edition for the latest issue?[edit]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2015-02-11 is a redlink. :( Anomie 11:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Anomie thanks for the note. I have filled that page manually. The publication tool gave me some errors at its last page. Pinging User:The ed17 to check into the publication tool. --Pine 11:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • This is a known defect of the publishing script. When Jarry has time to fix the numerous other errors in the script, I'm hopeful that he will address this one as well. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

On professionalism[edit]

The use of a ":)" in the caption appearing on the front page of the paper bothers me; it seems a needless breach of professionalism that doesn't add anything to the picture in question. ResMar 16:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed! Gamaliel (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Was it not intentional? ResMar 22:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I suspect it was just grabbed from the FC article, which has a traditionally lighter tone than the rest of the Signpost, and we didn't notice the emoticon. Gamaliel (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Some ideas[edit]

I remember back—way back—when I was active at this publication the number one thing that got me excited (never mind the bloody dispatches) was the opinion desk, which published some engrossing and truly interesting material. Now, I've not been active in this project or on Wikipedia in general for quite a while, but I'm still quite disappointed with the desk's low level of output. There are a lot of essays being written on Wikipedia and new ones are going up all the time; why not publish a few of them?

I understand that, as always, this has a lot to do with the overwhelming nature of the work slewn onto the paper editors (Ed's comments in that TFD only serve to reinforce my notion of the temporal and thankless nature of it all). Still I think that we certainly we could have found something that someone wrote in all of 2014 worth publishing! Perhaps this would require actively searching out and reading other people's works and curational discussions about what's worth publishing amongst the staff. I'm curious to see if there isn't some mechanism by which someone might be able to scrobble through most recently written Wikipedian essays to see if any are worth publishing. They won't all have the impact of the one we published on declining administrator promotion (I admit, I am jealous!), but I think they're a valuable thing for any publication to keep stock of and a way to differentiate this paper from "encyclopedia on the encyclopedia" to, well, a newspaper.

What do you all think? ResMar 03:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Resident Mario. Actually, we have run some interesting op-eds and such over the past year, including I believe three since Gamaliel and I became co-editors, but to be honest, I forgot that page existed, so I never listed them there. I suspect that is some of the reason that page looks so bare. The ed17 -- is that correct? Thanks for bringing it up, and we do always strive to have an opinion piece or special feature of some kind in each issue. Go Phightins! 11:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
You guys should really put more effort into keeping a catalog of publications: I'm still the only person in the edit history for the special desk, for instance. Ensuring editorial continuity in the paper is important—otherwise people write things, others read them, and then they vanish into the archives forever, never to be seen or introduced into or cited in relevant discussions again. ResMar 16:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
A side effect of soliciting and receiving more op-eds via email and Google docs led to the op desk being underutilized. The lack of an updated list of op-eds is, I admit, my fault. I forgot to keep track of them. A quick check of the 2014 archives shows that we had fourteen op-eds and three forums last year. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
@The ed17: Aha! My concerns are unwarranted then! Excellent.
I have another several harebrained schemes, however, also in the theme of "continuity".
Series template modifications
The Signpost maintains continuity across articles on related subjects primarily through the use of the Series template. This template has the advantage of allowing past stories to automatically front-link to more recently written ones: a topic-specific implementation of the template is made and then posted across the related articles that is automatically updated on all of them when a new one is published and included in the list. However there were always issues fitting all of the articles on a particular subject into the template comfortably when there were a lot of them, which causes a lot of formatting problems in older articles which were designed with the then-current, much shorter topic list in mind. See, for instance, the flagged revisions story-roll, and how it fits in—or doesn't—here and here. Ideally we (you?) should be trying to both maintain continuity in articles and prevent older ones from degrading in the long-term.
For that purpose I've jury rigged an extended version of the template with the capacity to auto-hide links: an example in action is here. I think it's definitely worthwhile investigating bringing that functionality into the series template, or perhaps into an extended version of the series template.
One problem is that elegant custom toggle bit that I back-in-the-day stole from some Foundation page or other only opens downwards (as do all the other item-hiding templates), which would require listing items in reverse chronological order, which isn't necessarily a good change to make. Another is defining a breakpoint for when "enough is enough" and further articles should be hidden; I think this would be a trivial problem in Lua, but I have no experience with Wikipedia's new template paradigms. ResMar 18:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
ResMar, that's brilliant. I've had trouble with the overly lengthy template. Legoktm, is there any chance you could help with the Lua end of this? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Indexing of past stories
I have spent the past couple of hours going through past issues of the Signpost and building or fixing up lists of published content as they appear in the various subdesks. I implore the editors that, in the future, they keep these lists active—ae. update them as necessary whenever special reports, series, etc. are published. If we cannot track of its own ideas in a cohesive manner how can we expect readers to keep track of them, too? ResMar 03:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I finished up the op-eds. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Unused templates which may be of use
There are a handful of templates in the namespace which do not see any use: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Briefly, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Related, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Discussion used, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Poll, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Analysis. Perhaps a use could be found for them, perhaps not. ResMar 03:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Poll and analysis were used often in Jarry's tech reports. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Poll in particular is super interesting to me. I can imagine sticking it into a N&N entry and asking users whether or not they agree/disagree with particular statements, issues, etc. The way I was thinking of implementing it involves users clicking on blue-links which accept their response and return the results so far on some sort of external website, but Jarry's implementation is much more impressive, both visually and technically. It is also (as far as I can tell), unfortunately, broken :). ResMar 06:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, he would run them on the Toolserver, which is now gone. You might be able to get someone to do it on Labs; I suspect that it would be incredibly simple to code. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Guidelines
I think that this page from 2011 should be revived and made more prominent in the organization of the paper. It provides a framework for how Signpost content is organized, and could prove useful as a companion to the sidebarred "Style" guidelines: where one explains how the articles should be written, the other explains what is being written. It's a formalization of what regulars here already know, but I think it's an important one that would be helpful in getting potential editors started. ResMar 03:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not often that I can say that I've never seen a Signpost page before. I've made a few tweaks to update that page to current expectations. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm currently bringing it up to specification; once I'm done I think I'll sidehost it to the Style link in the sidebar. ResMar 06:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
It'll need the traffic report! You've done a great job with it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I've added a couple of splash infographics to the page, it's good to go. ResMar 19:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, I hear there's an opening in N&N? I might bite. ResMar 06:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
There is an opening! I'm around for bouncing ideas of of, institutional knowledge, and contacts, but grad school is (a) taking much of my time and (b) making me write a lot. I don't have a lot of willingness to finish a paper and immediately turn around for NAN. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Whereas my schoolwork is apparently not sufficient to keep me from spending half a day cataloging old Signpost pages! ResMar 06:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I have 120 essay exams to grade, a book to read, and a book review to write by Tuesday. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

FP draft[edit]

Could anyone please set up a draft on the next featured issue, we are nowhere and I have no idea how to do it. We should be working on that already. Please, help. Hafspajen (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

New content page[edit]

As I mentioned in my discussion with Ed, above, I've put together a heavily revised and updated version of the old content guidelines and inserted them into the (also partially refurbished) sidebar. I hope you will all find it appropriate, and fix it up or add to it where it is not or could be improved. Elsewhere I've finished cataloging a lot of the old materials that was not properly kept track of amongst the desks. ResMar 22:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks great, Resident Mario. Thanks for all your help with this. I appreciate it. Go Phightins! 23:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Two new templates proposed[edit]

WikipediaSignpostIcon.svg
Signpost poll

Do you believe that pending changes are the future when it comes to Wikipedia version control?

Foundation Logo Transparent.svg  
 
 
 
  Yes (20.69%; 6 votes)
  No (41.38%; 12 votes)
  Maybe (37.93%; 11 votes)

Polls

The no-longer-working state of Jarry's polling template got me thinking about whether or not this could be done entirely within Wikipedia, allowing the poll to update results in real time, as it were, instead of forcing us to ask questions far beforehand. After a lot of wrangling I'm surprised to say that the answer is, yes! It requires the creation of two subpages every time a poll is made but it can be done: a working mockup is here. Try voting: it's fun to watch the bar move.

The advantages over the old format is that because it handles all counting using Wikipedia parser functions the poll can be updated in real time by the votes of the users, and it further requires no further effort on the part of the pollster once the poll (requiring subpages be created to cache votes) is implemented. The striking visual nature of Jarry's effort can probably be reproduced once I play with some opacity triggers and image transparency: right now it's just a simple stacked bar chart. Visual ideas would be appreciated. Done.

The disadvantage is that this hinges on users not changing inputted text while voting. My hope is that an edit-notice will provide enough warning of the need for them not to mess with the format too much—the template relies on doing a hidden character count on vote collection pages and so will be really easy to break if someone decides they want to say, paste the opening chapter of Moby Dick in. A much more robust Lua function's been put into place which will be much, much harder to break.

A lot of work remains to be done. ResMar 16:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

After a full day's work I've realized I'm approaching this from an impossible angle and will have to redo most of it. Time to learn Lua I think. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Strange_behavior_from_PAGESIZE_magic_word. ResMar 03:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Never mind it, using Lua Mr. Stradivarius did in five minutes what I spent two hours failing to do and the template complex is now fully operational! To test out operations try out the poll at right; to see documentation and extensive semi-automated setup instructions see the documentation on the page.
I confess that when I figured out this is possible I jumped a little bit in my chair. I was expecting any number of reactions—but certainly not silence! Well? What do you guys think? ResMar 06:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks terrific, Resident Mario. This week's news and notes could potentially have a poll in it, so perhaps we can test it out! Thanks for your work on this. Go Phightins! 14:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Although now when I click yes or no, I am taken to a "bad title" page. Go Phightins! 14:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
It won't be ready for use this week; maybe next week. I've got to squash more bugs (like the one you're mentioning) and automate a couple of things (opening poll display only after X votes, closing the poll after Y). I also want to set up support for a third polling option though that may be more of an optional feature. But do watch this space! ResMar 15:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Edit: Fixed that, I forgot to enable a default case for button clicks. ResMar 15:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@Go Phightins!: Status update: I'm about to do another dry run and if all goes well we're clear to go. Very extensive documentation and a tool-assisted creation has been outlined here. ResMar 18:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@Go Phightins!: Yes check.svg Done; there was one final bug to squash but now it's done and fully ready to go! ResMar 19:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Three-option polling now a reality! ResMar 01:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Series

After the earlier discussion I finished a rewrite of the Series template which allows the creation and configuration of story-hiding breakpoints. You can see the code in my sandbox and a full working example at Sandbox; a fast example is at right. This template is a provisional update on the current Signpost series template with several modifications:

  • An ability to introduce a "More articles" breakpoint has been defined. To set the article number at which to begin hiding items in a dropdown list, use the parameter |breakpoint=n to control the number of items to be hidden. This allows hiding stories in a series for display neatness: there has always been an unresolved problem with series expanding beyond the length that the original authors accommodated for and breaking accepted formatting in old articles. This fixes that problem.
  • To accommodate this change the orientation of the articles has been changed-in-place to be in reverse chronological order, whereas in the past this template would display items in chronological order: that is, this provisional update lists articles with the newest at the top and the oldest at the bottom whereas the old one listed them with the oldest articles on top, newest on the bottom. Only the orientation is changed—parameter inputs remain the same and continuity is preserved with currently-placed, older series templates in articles. I believe this is an acceptable sacrifice to make, however.

This is basically ready for immediate substitution. ResMar 16:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Resident Mario: would it break the existing functionality of the templates already being used? If so, let's implement this at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Series 2 rather than painstakingly replacing all of the old ones. If not, let's start using it! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Can't be sure until you jump, but there's nothing in the new template that would cause incompatibility. Seeing as how I'm deadlocked on the vote template (it looks like I'm going to have to learn Lua, see this), I'll take a look now. ResMar 03:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@The ed17: Done; check it out in action! ResMar 04:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

TEDx talk on astroturfing on Wikipedia[edit]

Helo, I've found this. Good luck! --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@NaBUru38: Wikipedia editors are not particularly impressed: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_182#Journalist_Sharyl_Attkisson_criticizes_Wikipedia --NeilN talk to me 19:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Me neither. It's still relevant news. --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
@NaBUru38: We've already covered it in ITM: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-02-11/In_the_media Gamaliel (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I had missed it. Thanks! --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Double delivery[edit]

Hi all, apologies for anyone who received the Signpost twice in successive sections ... not sure what happened. Gamaliel? Was anything odd during publication? Anyway, the issue is so good, I suppose you'll just need to read it a second time Face-smile.svg! Go Phightins! 11:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I got a double delivery too. Sounds like a newspaper delivery boy that got lost and, just to "make sure he got all his assigned houses covered," delivered a second paper to the houses along his route. Well, if you lost your first copy (or used it to make paper maches), you at least have a second! --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 12:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Me too. K6ka is right. Face-smile.svg..Ṫ Ḧ the joy of the LORDmy strength 13:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@Go Phightins!: I don't think that was Gamaliel unless he was awake at 5am EST (10am GMT) ... could this be a hiccup on MassMessage's side? It double-sent globally too, also six hours apart. [1] Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@The ed17:, Ed, this is unrelated, but can you hop on the IRC sometime today? I've already given my spiel to Phightins and Gamaliel. ResMar 16:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I assure you that for once I was completely passed out at 5am. Gamaliel (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Special:Log/massmessage says that the bot sent it out twice. Nothing in MM :) Legoktm (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@Resident Mario: I can be on later tonight (about four or five hours?). @Legoktm: that means that I need to go poke Jarry again. Thanks for letting me know! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I will match you but at that point it's uncertain I'll be able to stay for long. ResMar 23:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm currently taking care of a sick woman and, this being a new computer, don't have my Chatzilla settings anymore. Name a time tomorrow evening and I'll be there. I'm really sorry, ResMar. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

White House flexes Wikipedia muscles, with moderate results[edit]

I was surprised to see the White House tweet [2] and blog [3] about an "edit-a-thon" for Black History Month. According to Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/African Americans in STEM, the result of this were new articles for LaSalle D. Leffall Jr., Kimberly Bryant (technologist), Margaret S. Collins, Henry Aaron Hill, Leonard C. Bailey, and Thomas W. Talley (someone tagged this last one for speedy deletion). Also Ben Montgomery, St. Elmo Brady, Charles L. Reason, and Mary Eliza Mahoney were improved, and a new image loaded for Christine Darden. (I double-checked the participants' contributions and didn't see any others)

On one hand, yes, the White House called and people answered. But on the other ... this amount of effort is routinely matched by some of the more active Wikipedians on an individual basis. Whether or not a single person makes a difference in Washington, when it comes to Wikipedia -- one dedicated individual can match the output of a White House call for action. I find this surprising and ... oddly inspirational. Wnt (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamaliel -- ITM secondary lead, perhaps? The White House running an edit-a-thon is a big deal ... Go Phightins! 04:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
This will be featured prominently in the next ITM. Just not enough time to get it in this week. Gamaliel (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Internal discussion[edit]

There has been plenty of support and encouragement for a editors- and edits-based supplement to the Traffic Report. Bamyers99 has automated the production of such a report which you can see here except for the NFC images which would be allowed outside of userspace. Do the editorial directors prefer that this appear below the Traffic Report or separately? I prefer the former because I believe the interests of readers should be considered above the interests of editors. For similar reasons, while I strongly support, encourage, and enjoy editorial content concerning entries in the reader traffic report, it is completely unclear to me whether editorial comments are necessary or advisable as part of this top-20 by editors and edits. I do note that spikes in editors and edits apparently precede spikes in readers, depending on how you look at them (e.g., the edits and editors list was inundated with Super Bowl articles a week before the readership list was. However, that could be an artifact of calendar dates.) EllenCT (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Milowent, Serindipodous, and Gamaliel for comments on this. My initial inclination is to include the information as a table below the regular traffic report, probably without commentary, but I have no strong opinion and will defer to you three. Go Phightins! 15:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Fix ping for Serendipodous. Go Phightins! 15:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Tangent: Phightins, it's my understanding that pings only work when there is a signature in the same edit. So in the case above, you'd only need to fix the ping and paste over your signature with four tildes. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. If people take to it I might add commentary later. Serendipodous 16:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@Bamyers99: you mentioned here that you would need to file an approval request for this to move forward. I don't know what the time frame on those are, but presumably you can create the pages in your userspace for Serendipodous to copy manually below his usual report with or without commentary as he sees fit for the time being? Could you please work with him to figure out what to do about the NFC images issue? Maybe you can make easily convertible blue links to NFC images while they are in userspace? I am super-busy with work this week but I want to reiterate my thanks. I looked a little closer at the spike timing, and it's not an artifact of dates; the edit(or)-driven list is definitely a few days ahead of the readership stats in many but not all cases of articles showing up on both, so this may make the TR a little "newsier". Cheers! EllenCT (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Re: non-free images outside article space, it appears that others disagree about them being allowed in the Wikipedia namespace per this edit and this edit.
If Serendipodous doesn't mind grabbing the new report from the bots user page, then WP:BAG approval is not needed. I just need to know what day of the week to run the report on. --Bamyers99 (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, NFC images would not be allowed in the Signpost or anywhere outside of the mainspace . Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The Traffic Report captures Sunday-Saturday views each week. The WP:5000 is usually updated each Sunday sometime with the prior weeks data, and is used to create the Top 25 and Traffic Report.--Milowenthasspoken 04:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I have no objection to adding it as a section of "Most Edited Articles"(?) of the Traffic Report. As for comments, it could go either way or have an intro mention of any key findings. I've not thought too much about the value of the editing data, but I suspect some editors would have an interest in it. It might also highlight editing disputes that need a hand.--Milowenthasspoken 04:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
A new Most Edited Articles report is available. --Bamyers99 (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Newsroom tweaks[edit]

I have moved this discussion from the newsroom to here. Let's please keep the newsroom relatively clean; suggestions for articles go here (or even better, to the suggestions page), the newsroom ought to be for internal discussions. ResMar 02:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Following separate discussion with the head editors I have reorganized and refactored the newspaper's internal organization somewhat. The changes should be evident at the newsroom. All, ResMar 03:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Signpost MfD[edit]

(conversation moved from Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions)

I was going to propose an MfD for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Tasks/Set, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Deadline/core and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Tasks/Colour as it seems like they haven't been regularly used in several years. Alternatively, you could mark them {{historic}} if you wanted to retain them for their page history. What do you think? Liz Read! Talk! 15:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: No it's in active use—it's a sub-template for {{Signpost assignments}}, the core status matrix at the newsroom. Also, two things: we ask that users not get overly zealous with deleting materials in the Signpost namespace: see this discussion for instance, which resulted in a failed MfD and a truckload of ill will. Things that may seem useless now may come in handy in the future (I just brought article status templates back, something we last used in 2012). Second, this page is our tip line, meant for story suggestions only; more general messages should go to the talk page. Thanks, ResMar 15:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok seriously look before you leap. ResMar 15:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
One, I've already asked Gamaliel if I could work on the Signpost categorization system and got the okay to organize pages which lack categorization. Issues like this one will come up during that process. Second, I am not deleting anything, I left a note here describing what I found. I realize that it is up to the Signpost staff to determine whether something is in use or not so I will not be putting forth any proposals. If I see a page that looks like it hasn't been used in several years, I'll note it on the talk page then and you all can decide what to do about it. Liz Read! Talk! 15:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: Contact me on #wikisignpost connect to further discuss. If you are interested in categorization there's a project we're starting soon that will be in your domain. ResMar 15:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Even if those work pages were not currently being used by Signpost editors, it would be apppropriate to mark them as "historical" using Template:Historical, i.e {{Historical}}. I suspect MFD and other deletions have been used sometimes when stuff should be saved. WikiProjects and other Wikipedia-space material should often be kept this way, else we lose our own history of how Wikipedia was built. Workpages and their edit history provide the records of good work done by many editors, keeping them retains our/their ability to document what they did and credit them. So, Liz, if you come across other workpages not being used, don't think they must be deleted. --doncram 05:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I've since deprecated a lot of stuff with Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Deprecated. ResMar 12:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Archival effort[edit]

Talk pages for all Signpost subpages expect for this one and Suggestions have now been closed. Please direct all suggestions there, and all more general inquiries here. The following section has been created to retain a historical record in the Signpost's talk page indexing, for search purposes. ResMar 19:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Single-page view[edit]

Just a query and suggestion here. Whenever I get the delivery on my talk page, I normally go to read the issue through the "Single-page" link. However, that link has been red for a long as a day after publication lately. When it's still a redlink, I just plain don't read the issue, and I've forgotten to read issues right away as a result. Whatever has changed recently, can you un-change it so that the "single-page" version of The Signpost is a valid page at the time of delivery? Thanks, Imzadi 1979  20:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It's an issue with redirects. I'll ask Jarry to change the page address in the bot delivery. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Internal discussion (2)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This is unproductive. ResMar 05:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  • The part Ladies, don't write off the young guys – it can work. - That was Oprah who said it. I take her word for it. --Hafspajen (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


.Hey Haf, sorry for reverting you but I thought it would be best to keep it out while we're talking. In my view, and the view of a woman I asked for comment, the last sentence is pretty sexist. While I'm very sure that it was unintentional (really, I can't stress enough that I'm not blaming or mad at you or anything like that), I don't feel that it should be in a description. Is that alright? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Then I simply have to say, I do not agree. Which part of the :Their marriage was a happy one. Some say this kind of thing never works out. Reality says otherwise. Ladies, don't write off the young guys – it can work. - is sexist? It was maybe a joke, but part of it was serious. I am going to reinstate either way the: Their marriage was a happy one. Some say this kind of thing never works out. Reality says otherwise. -
Can't find ANYTHING offensive with this. Not a word, not one single word of it. About the part Ladies, don't write off the young guys – it can work... - I don't find it sexist at all. I what what is this sexist? ON THE CONTRARY: In this world where people only look for women who are young, beautiful and all guys try to find YOUNG women, who are willing to look up to them because they are like ten years older and so called wiser and measures their value in youth and beauty - our friend Sheikh Mijwal al-Musrab stands out as a shining star. It is a man who married a woman twenty years older than him and made her happy. Excellent. Just wonderful. Every woman, every feminist, every person who cares about a woman should applaud this. It is a man who cared for a woman for what she was, and have seen her with his hart and not with his eyes. And succeeded to won her heart, above all stupid barons, all kings, a princes, a colonels, and counts who never succeed to keep her for long, because she left them. That was no woman who knew nothing about men, I can promise you. I now reinstate the part: Their marriage was a happy one. Some say this kind of thing never works out. Reality says otherwise.' Hafspajen (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Sexism or gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender. The above is not. Hafspajen (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I move this discussion to Signpost talk. And if you remove this once more I remove all the enrty and leave nothing but: Jane Digby (created by William Charles Ross, nominated by Alborzagros ) This miniature by the artist William Charles Ross portrays the fascinating Jane Digby. - That is what I have to say. Hafspajen (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

For one thing, it used the patronizing word "girls" instead of "ladies" before I changed it. The Signpost was two days late waiting for FC and we had to make a last minute call late in the evening our time on Friday, and that was the decision we made. We appreciate and value the time all of you take to create FC as it is an important part of the Signpost, but when it is significantly late we have to sacrifice our time at odd hours as well, and we have to make decisions like this without the luxury of being able to discuss them with you before publication. We are willing to discuss editorial decisions with you in private or in public, but delivering public ultimatums is not professional or appropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Hafspajen, last night while we were in the process of publishing, we noticed that the summary in question could be perceived differently than we know you intended it. After asking for some input from others, we decided it would be best to pare the summary as we did. We certainly do not think you intended it to be "sexist", but as perception is reality, we needed to guard against it being perceived that way. Thanks for understanding. Go Phightins! 18:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
You apparently tell me that you didn't afforded the 'luxury of being able to discuss them with ME before publication. But you decided to discuss it among yourselves. Now answer me just one question: Do you, Gamaliel, Ed and the guys deciding this - DO you know if I am a man or a woman? Please answer the question with a simple yes or no. Hafspajen (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes-
No-

go ahead. Hafspajen (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

We were all online publishing the Signpost at the same time. The bot is down we had to publish manually, which is laborious and time-consuming, so thankfully others were there to assist me, and we collaborated via a Skype chat. In the process of publishing, someone brought up the passage in question. I have no idea what your gender is and it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. At the time we did not know or discuss who contributed the language in question (which would have required searching the edit history, something we did not do) so it would not have mattered if any of us knew your gender. Our concerns were not with you, your gender, your thoughts, or your intentions, only the language used. We believe your intentions were positive and not negative. Gamaliel (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You didn't answered the above question. It is not irrelevant in a discussion about being accused of sexism. Not a bit. It is the core of the question. If you don't know - than you all made the sexist assumption that I am a man making derogatory comments against woman.
  • If I am a woman, in that case you three are now forcing me to step up and disclose my gender, to defend myself. Because in that case I can't be making sexist remarks, can I?
  • If I am a man - than I must defend myself as I did above.
  • Wrong in all ways. Either ways - do you wish that I should here and now disclose my gender? If you do, I will. Hafspajen (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Hafspajen: No, I most certainly made no assumptions about your gender. What I saw was language that could potentially be construed as sexist, something we've been accused of missing, and decided to play it safe. Your gender is, to me, immaterial. Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


  • No, it is not immaterial. Because if a woman wrote the above - it is not sexist. If a man did it, it is. Hafspajen (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • No one has accused anyone of sexism. We do not think you are sexist. We disagreed with your choice of language, that is all. At the time we made the decision to change the language, we did not know or care about the gender or identity of the author. You don't have to be sexist to accidentally make a mistake that someone perceives as sexist. Gamaliel (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • What Gamaliel said. Someone I trust told me that she thought it was sexist, so I took it off, thinking it was an uncontroversial editorial choice that still had an enormously interesting blurb (that's a lot of affairs!). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


  • How am I supposed to interpret the words (posted on my talk) : Hey Haf, sorry for reverting you but I thought it would be best to keep it out while we're talking. In my view, and the view of a woman I asked for comment, the last sentence is pretty sexist. If you don't think I am sexist, don't say so. Hafspajen (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) *Firstly, let me thank Hafspajen for all the work undertaken - I'm sure that was also "laborious and time consuming". Please explain how the comment can be perceived to be "sexist" and by whom? As a British female I just cannot see it. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC) And it does come across as Hafspajen being accused as being sexist. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

No doubt it was difficult and time-consuming for them, and I have repeatedly praised Hafspajen and others who put together FC for their hard work. Why do you find it so difficult to believe someone would perceive something in FC that wasn't intended by the author? After all, right now you are perceiving an accusation of sexism where there is clearly none. Gamaliel (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I beg to differ - and I find your comment and tone unbecoming of an Admin. I'm withdrawing from any further participation in this "discussion", it just reminds me of the way certain areas of SignPost are being used. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Well... that's a pretty low bar for being unbecoming of an administrator, no? We're trying to maneuver to protect the Signpost from undue accusations, that's all. Clearly the FC team puts in an enormous amount of work each week, and everyone else—especially content contributors—appreciates that. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Ask AGAIN: How am I supposed to interpret the words (posted on my talk) : Hey Haf, sorry for reverting you but I thought it would be best to keep it out while we're talking. In my view, and the view of a woman I asked for comment, the last sentence is pretty sexist. If you don't think I am sexist, don't say so. Hafspajen (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • She said the sentence was sexist, not its author. That is not the same thing. Gamaliel (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) The sentence was sexist. Not you. I am have written sexist sentences without being a sexist person. These things happen even when we don't intend to. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Näää. Tell me then how the sentence was sexist. And also who is SHE who said She said the sentence was sexist, not its author, may I ask. Hafspajen (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Difficult not to perceive it as such, if someone tell you you write sexist things .
  • Just tell me then how the sentence was sexist. And point me to that discussion you had can't notice any discussion about the topic anywhere, not newsroom or any talkpage. Hafspajen (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Was it: Older woman-young guy – it can work? Hafspajen (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Was it: Their marriage was happy? Hafspajen (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Some say this kind of thing never works out. Reality says otherwise? Hafspajen (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • We asked two women about the passage in question. We are not going to divulge their identities without their permission. Gamaliel (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) The use of "girls," which has commonly been used as a demeaning term, and the whole concept of demanding that ladies consider younger men for their marriage possibilities. I'm not going to name who gave me the opinion—it would have a chilling effect. This she read the sentence without any context (read: knowing who authored it) and gave an opinion. That's all. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


Nobody is answering my question (girls were removed when you removed the bit already, and and yes Ladies were an improvement, thank you Gamaliel) :

Was it: Older woman-young guy – it can work? Hafspajen (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

− −

Was it: Their marriage was happy? Hafspajen (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Was it:Some say this kind of thing never works out. Reality says otherwise? Hafspajen (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

− −

YOU can answer it without ever telling me who said it. Hafspajen (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
And the context was: Sheikh Mijwal al-Musrab was a man who married a woman twenty years older than him and made her happy. She was forty-six, and he was twenty-six. He was a man who cared for a woman for what she was, and have seen her with his hart and not with his eyes. And succeeded to won her heart, above all barons, all kings, a princes, a colonels, and counts who never succeeded to keep her for long, because she left them all and : Their marriage was a happy one. Some say this kind of thing never works out. Reality says otherwise - Hafspajen (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't think it made as much sense without the following context. That said, I probably could have left the "happy" sentence. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • May I? I think its sexism is marginal (for clarity's sake, this is what we're talking about, I believe), but if I were running the show I wouldn't print it either. Sorry Hafs. Oprah said this? If she did, it was for a very different audience than the Signpost. Besides what I think is marginal sexism, there's tone (but perhaps I'm too formal) and content: it suggests that women always marry men. But yes, "Their marriage was a happy one" could have been left. But let's please realize that "sentence A is sexist" is indeed dependent on context etc., and that no one is accusing no one of being a sexist. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Women who are forty-six, together with a guy who is twenty-six are often harassed by society and are indeed regularly facing people making derogatory comments against the woman, yes, sexist comments from all the others. Oprah said this, yes - when making a program about women living happily together with younger men. Married, living in serious relationships. AND we also made a lot jokes in the Singpost - before. And some women do marry men, the above example was about a man and a woman, and just how are we supposed to bring in same-sex marriage into it? And before anyone starts that part - I am not against that either. The Swedish church do allow gay marriages. And has woman priests to. All priest-candidates are regularly asked before getting into the program :Do you have anything against to perform blessing or joining together in marriage a gay couple - and if you say, I am against, you are out. Hafspajen (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
May I add a few comments? I think this discussion is actually about several different things, and they've all gotten tangled. Regardless of what one thinks of the quote, Hafs has told me that s/he was up all night working on the Signpost - that is, actively editing on WP. If the editors working on the Signpost is indeed a team, it would have been courteous to ask Hafs what s/he thought before removing the quote. Not asking Hafs may have made him/her feel as if s/he were not an equal member of the team. Also, this is the second time in the last few weeks that I've seen hurt feelings and misunderstanding arise out of a rush to get Signpost ready for publication in a very short time. Isn't there any way to work ahead a bit so that there is a little more time for discussion before publication? CorinneSD (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree with the above comment. It was told, somewhere above: After asking for some input from others, we decided it would be best to pare the summary as we did. I agree, why wasn't anyone asking me? I was spending my Saturday that in fact I intended to spend a very diffent way, by editing the Singpost. Circa eight- nine-ten something hours. I was up until dawn, fixing this one and putting up the next draft, all night. Here next issue. I could have told you the story THEN; instead of NOW, publicly, as you stated above. And about the rest (not this issue) why - well, my theory is total lack of communication. Nobody knows what the others do or intend to do. Hafspajen (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I thought we were working as a team. I was actively editing all night, so you could have contacted me. I feel it would have been more courteous to ask me before removing the quote than to remove it first and let me find out after publication. Regarding the quote, I do not understand how it can be perceived as sexist. Could somebody please explain to me exactly what in the quote is sexist, and why? Hafspajen (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Haf, we can't monitor everything that is added while it is being added. We published only minutes after you finished! We're going to start a dialogue this week to get our houses in order (with regards to communication), and I'm very hopeful that Resident Mario will be able to code a bot to significantly lessen the manual labor you all have to to. As for the sexism, Drmies explains it well above. I'd add that "ladies" and "girls" are words that should be used cautiously. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@The ed17: I wouldn't wait for a bot with bated breath, unfortunately the problem looks to be more complex than I initially imagined. Did you know that WP:GO is also updated manually? Since 2004? Wow! Nonetheless I'll look into at the end of this month. ResMar 03:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I mean, I did know, but being clueless in these matters, I did not know would affect the construction of a bot. :-p Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Refresh[edit]

Statement of facts:

  • The content of an article being written is at the discretion of the writer.
  • The content of articles to be published is ultimately at the discretion of the editor(s)-in-chief.
  • When making significant changes or removals editor(s)-in-chief ought to speak with the writer as part of due process.
  • When this is with regards to material added on-deadline or past-deadline, however, prior consent is not always possible.
  • The removal in this case was minor and in no way impacted the general palatability of the article.
  • Continuing to argue over it will get us nowhere.

If we wish to argue about the issue of communication within the Signpost we can commence it here. ResMar 05:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

cf. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Coordination. ResMar 05:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't count on me. I agree with the part: The content of an article being written is at the discretion of the writer. The rest - no. Dead-lines occur all the time. If this is not a democratic process, but an announcement about that discussion forbidden, when it takes two seconds to leave a message - I can't agree. On Wikipedia where even admins actions can be discussed, and if editors are not respected but commanded as in the army - no. It was fun, until it lasted. I removed myself from the regular editors. And, a last minor point - nobody did answered the question. Still. The only thing someone told me was that an unknown woman thought it was sexist, without even knowing the context. And who knows, maybe I am a woman myself. If this is true you are loosing the one woman editor you had. Maybe it is true. Maybe it is not true. One never knows. Hafspajen (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Haf, just the appearance of sexism—even in passing, and even if only through a quick reading, not a close examination—is undesirable in a community that has a 10–90 gender split and at a time when males have had almost all of the social and economic power in society for a looooong time. Could you be a little flexible on this? I like the humorous vein of FC. Is that your doing? Tony (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Partly, yes. Hafspajen (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
With regards to sexism, who the hell cares. With regards to communication, we're an online newspaper, we don't do things the same way the rest of the Wikipedia publication does things. It's not that these things can't or shouldn't be discussed, it's that at the end of the day the editor(s)-in-chief have final say. ResMar 16:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In this case, it wasn't even that we wanted the final say, we just didn't know that this change would be so controversial. We would have gladly engaged in a discussion of this change if we knew it would be so objectionable and if there was time before publication. We are, of course, willing to engage in that discussion now, as we have been for the last two days. Gamaliel (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If it was taken so seriously that the the whole bit was cut, then it's serious enough that it should be able to explain it to me when I asked. I never got any strait answer, the issue was dismissed. If you are so afraid that someone *may* read sexism into something, then that is kind of makes my case. And if me - who possible, who knows - could even be a woman - or not - but if -and didn't thought it was sexist, probably it was not that sexist at all. Hafspajen (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The issue was not dismissed; User:The ed17 and I spent a great deal of time yesterday discussing this issue with you. If you still have concerns, we are still willing to discuss this matter with you. User:Go Phightins! will also be contacting everyone involved with FC soon to see what we can do to improve the production of that section. Gamaliel (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, in that case if you are still listening to me: in my view this sentence was all about the woman having agency. I was recommending women to consider *choosing* young men or at least to *listen to* and *look at* them. The whole point of my sentence was - women *choose*. Most people find it very hard to think of a woman having agency - in their minds the woman gets mobbed by lots of men and the most she gets to do is decide how many times to say no. If you are used to thinking of the man as always doing the asking and not thinking about what the woman might want, maybe you could miss that that's what I *wrote* was chosing - a choice - one's independent capability or ability to act on one's will. For what it's worth, that is what I meant. Hafspajen (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Hafspajen: User:Go Phightins! is attempting to contact you to discuss this incident. Would you please email him? He cannot email you since you do not have email enabled on your Wikipedia account. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
There may be movement soon on getting FC set-up botted, but it'll take a while for the code to come together. ResMar 14:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the whole damned thing is a tempest in a teapot, but here's my opinion anyways. First, AFAIK the general condemnation of the word "girls" is a predominantly American phenomenon (though if I'm mistaken, do be sure to let me know), and thus part of this is quite likely a cultural misunderstanding. (And last I checked, the word was being reclaimed by some circles, such as Riot grrrl, though I doubt it's that mainstream yet)
Second, if our benchmark is "may possibly be construed as sexist", that's way too low: even asking a woman the simple question "When are you getting married?" could be construed as enforcing gender roles by saying that a woman must be wed. "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)", by the same standard, could be understood as a sexist song. Yes, we have to draw a line, but "may be construed as (racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.)" is probably not it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)